Evidence of meeting #40 for National Defence in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was money.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Thank you.
Welcome to the defence committee, Mr. Ruimy. You have the floor.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Thank you.
It's a privilege to be here today. It's my first time subbing in and it's a privilege. It's also a little bittersweet for me.
Before I get to my question, I just want to take a moment to thank you for today's announcements regarding the 1974 grenade blast in Valcartier, in which six cadets lost their lives. I was a young cadet in The Royal Montreal Regiment when we found out that two of our own were among the dead. It's something I've been following throughout the years, and I have felt the sadness and the frustration of all of those involved. Today, I would just like to say thank you for getting it done. I'm sure everybody appreciates that.
I will move on to my question. I see there are some transfers between National Defence and Global Affairs Canada to provide support to staff at missions abroad. Where are these positions located and what roles would they be fulfilling?
Liberal
Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC
As much as I'd like to take credit for it, this is not about our government; this not about the ombudsman; this is not about any party or any particular person. I appreciate that I just had the opportunity to finish this file in an appropriate way.
I want to highlight one person who did not get highlighted. He is not a cadet. He is a sergeant who was serving. I got to meet him afterwards and he pinned this on me today. He's the one who, I was told by the cadet committee, really championed the cause.
I will just mention a point. This is also very important, because it's about lessons for the future. We talk about just righting a wrong, but I got to meet with the cadets and talk about what these issues were. They're adults now. They were kids at one time, and that's what happened to them. They were ordered not to talk to anybody about it. We've learned from this. This is not just about the money, as they said; this is about the process we take and about making sure they get compassionate closure. I'm very happy that all members from all parties have really supported this.
To answer your question, when we look at the wider aspect, for us to be able to have engagement in the world and have a better understanding militarily, when we're talking about the leadership that we have, we have to have a footprint outside in key areas, and that's what this program represents. It allows us to have situational awareness and to have influence as well. We had to rebuild some of this, and a little more work needs to be done.
Do you want to take it?
Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence
Sure, I'm happy to.
The amount in (C) is for three positions. Every time we post somebody abroad, they are housed and hosted by the embassy, so we pay some money to GAC for the costs of that support. In the case of supplementary estimates (C), there's a staff officer position in Washington, one in Jakarta, and one in Ankara, which is the last. There were also members of the committee who were called. There were several in supplementary estimates (B) that we also put in. It's part of the military engagement program to put people around the world so that we have good access to militaries around the world and good intelligence coming back.
Liberal
Leona Alleslev Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you so much for sharing with me.
I'd like to move, if we could, to the reallocation of the $48.2 million from capital and grants and contributions to operating. There's no question that we are in the process of looking at a lot of recapitalization. That's really critical money, and every year lost, of course, is something we need to focus on. Can you shed some light on why that is, what was that $39 million for capital supposed to be spent on, and what kind of processes do we need to put in place to mitigate that in the future?
Liberal
Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Before I go to the DM on this one, I just want to say that when we look at this, we want to make sure that every dollar we get in defence will have an impact. The last thing we want is lapsing money. I want to commend the team for the great work that everyone here has done. It's been tremendous work, and very innovative as well.
DM Forster.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Mr. Forster, we are almost out of time, but I think we all want to hear this. Then I think we'll have time to get to Mr. Garrison.
After Mr. Garrison, that will be it for questions, if that's acceptable to everyone? Okay.
Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence
I can go really fast.
Three projects make up the $39 million. The first is for the maritime helicopter project. Originally, Sikorsky was to buy all of the equipment. Some equipment that is controlled by the U.S. government they will only sell to us, so we get a credit from Sikorsky. Part of that money coming back is a credit the company owes us for things we bought from the U.S.
The $800,000 is for our move to Carling campus. As you've probably read, we are about three months behind schedule, so we won't spend all of our money this year, and that will go.
Then the very small amount of $1 million is for a small-boat threat project. It's only $1 million on a larger project. All of that money will be spent. None of it is being lost. We're trying to drive down our lapses considerably year over year.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Great. Thanks very much. It's good to have one last go-around here.
When we were in Washington, one of the things that was talked about was the way in which people account for their expenditures in the military and the talk of the 2% of GDP demand from the United States. I was wondering, given that we're dealing with estimates, whether we've given any thought to counting our expenditures the way some other countries do, which would make us get credit for what we actually do.
That's really my question. It's not about whether we're fudging the figures or not. It's that different countries count different ways. Some are getting credit for a bigger effort than Canada because we're not accounting for things the same way.
I just wonder if there's been any attention to that from the minister.
Liberal
Liberal
Leona Alleslev Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
We need to ask whether that's relevant to the supplementaries.
Liberal
Liberal
Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I'm okay with it. It's fine. Thank you.
When we launched the defence policy review, this is something we looked at in terms of where we were and where we wanted to go. The question of 2% comes up. It was a decision made in the Rio summit.
The first thing I wanted to do was, one, compare apples to apples. We looked at the formula we were using. At the same time, we have to be cognizant that different nations use a different formula. Right now the deputy minister is working with our closest partners to look at exactly the formula they're using so we can have a good comparison.
For the defence policy review, I needed to make sure I had a good comparison for making these decisions. When we went about deciding on our defence policy, it wasn't based on numbers, or 2%, because that doesn't give you the output. We based it on what output we want for our military for the next 20 years in Canada, in North American security, and in international engagements. From that you get the capabilities. Remember, I also mentioned the laundry list, the shopping list of things. In terms of capabilities, what are those capabilities that are new capabilities, and how do we need to maintain them up to 20 years as well? What are the types of people we need, how many, and in what trades? It was a very thorough analysis.
From that, what you get is a number, and from that number is what we will get. Then, at the end of the day, no one can say that we don't have the output, because the 2% aspiration was about having output for nations, that they do more for defence.
Now the deputy minister will work with the right formula to make sure that we are in line with our allies.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Thank you for that.
This will only take a minute, but it's something that we have to do.
We'll now vote on the supplementary estimates (C).
COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT
Budgetary
Vote 1c—Program expenditures..........$2,592,801
(Vote 1c agreed to)
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Vote 1c—Operating expenses..........$29,530,000
Vote 5c—Capital expenditures..........$18,775
(Votes 1c and 5c agreed to)
Shall the chair report the supplementary estimates (C) 2016-17 to the House?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Minister and departmental officials, thank you very much for coming.
Members, thank you very much. We'll go in camera for the remainder of our meeting.
[Proceedings continue in camera]